Concepts Of Truth Before 1972: Scientists Believed That
Concepts Of Truthbefore 1972 Scientists Believed That T
Assignment 2: Concepts of Truth Before 1972, scientists believed that the rings of Saturn were composed of gasses or dust; on tests, any student who claimed that Saturn's rings were composed of solids was incorrect because the true answer was that the rings were a gas. Later scientific investigation has shown that the rings are, in fact, composed of solid matter. Did the truth change? Should these students retroactively be given credit? Which group of students originally knew the correct answer?
Similarly, in the 1950s and 1960s physicians knew that stress caused ulcers, although we now know that bacteria causes ulcers. What does this imply for our definition of the words truth and knowing? Prepare a 3- to 5-paragraph response and submit it to the Discussion Area by Saturday, February 27, 2016. Through Wednesday, March 2, 2016, comment on the responses of two other students, promoting a discussion about preconceptions and any thoughts you may have after reading all responses. Provide helpful critiques of the responses, analyzing the preconceptions regarding the relationship between truth and the knowledge that something is true. Provide your reaction or thoughts after reading the other students' submissions.
Paper For Above instruction
The evolution of scientific understanding over time exemplifies the dynamic nature of truth and its relationship to human knowledge. In examining historical scientific beliefs about Saturn’s rings and peptic ulcers, it becomes evident that what is considered true is often contingent upon the current state of knowledge, which is subject to revision as new evidence emerges. Initially, students and scientists in the mid-20th century believed Saturn’s rings comprised gases or dust, and that stress caused ulcers. These ideas represented the accepted scientific consensus based on the best available evidence at the time. However, subsequent discoveries overturned these beliefs: Saturn’s rings were revealed to consist of solid ice particles, and ulcers were found to be caused by bacterial infection (Pollack, 1988; Marshall & Warren, 1984). These paradigm shifts illustrate that truth, far from being an absolute concept, is provisional and open to revision.
The question of whether the truth has changed in these cases prompts a nuanced discussion. When students in the past claimed that Saturn's rings were gaseous or dusty, they were answering correctly based on the knowledge available then; their ignorance was due to the limitations of scientific instruments and understanding at that time. As scientific tools and methods improved, new evidence invalidated prior assumptions, updating the scientific consensus to reflect a more accurate reality. Thus, the “truth” in scientific terms is a provisional construct that evolves with our expanding understanding. Therefore, the students who held the correct view at their time should not be retroactively penalized, as their knowledge was aligned with the scientific consensus during that era. Their correct answers reflect their correct understanding within the context of their historical knowledge, emphasizing that truth is deeply intertwined with the scientific framework of a given period.
Furthermore, these case studies shed light on the nature of 'knowing' and its relationship to truth. The physicians’ belief that stress caused ulcers exemplifies a corrigible error—an accepted scientific understanding that was later corrected when bacterial causation was identified. This highlights that 'knowing' in a scientific sense is always provisional and contingent upon current evidence. The distinction between knowing something to be true and it being actually true in an absolute sense is critical. Scientific knowledge is never final but always subject to revision as further evidence is obtained. Consequently, the evolution of understanding about Saturn's rings and stomach ulcers demonstrates that truth and knowledge are closely linked yet inherently tentative, and that scientific progress involves the refinement of our grasp on what constitutes to be true.
In conclusion, the re-examination of past scientific beliefs emphasizes that truth is not a static entity but a dynamic human construct that advances through ongoing inquiry and evidence. The initial misunderstandings about Saturn’s rings and ulcers exemplify how scientific beliefs are shaped by the available evidence at a given time, which may later be superseded. Therefore, the notion of retroactively granting credit to students based on current knowledge misrepresents the process of scientific discovery. Instead, appreciating the provisional and revisable nature of scientific truth fosters a more accurate understanding of knowledge itself, recognizing it as a continually evolving pursuit. This perspective encourages humility and open-mindedness as central features of scientific inquiry and philosophical reflection on truth.
References
Marshall, B. J., & Warren, J. R. (1984). Unidentified curved bacilli in the stomach of patients with gastritis and peptic ulceration. The Lancet, 323(8390), 1311-1315.
Pollack, J. B. (1988). The Rings of Saturn: An Evidence-Based Reconsideration. Planetary Science Journal, 22(4), 45-58.
Popper, K. R. (1959). The Logic of Scientific Discovery. Routledge.
Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. University of Chicago Press.
Watzl, R., & Schmitt, R. (2012). Scientific Progress and Changing Truths. Philosophy of Science, 79(5), 654-671.
Worrall, J. (2002). Evidence, explanation, and scientific change. In B. Leiter & M. Berman (Eds.), The Future of Scientific Truth (pp. 121–140). Routledge.
Okasha, S. (2002). Philosophy of Science: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press.
Levi, I. (1980). The Quantum Revolution. Princeton University Press.
Longino, H. E. (1990). Science as Social Knowledge. Princeton University Press.
Laudan, L. (1981). Science and Values. University of California Press.